Avadis.Tevanian@CMU-CS-SPICE.ARPA (01/27/84)
I had a great time one day running RT-11 on a PDP-11/10 with only a DECtape. A simple typo would cause the poor thing to go to tape for the error message.
faunt@hplabsc.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (02/05/84)
After we tried a papaer tape OS with a big spool of paper tape, on our 11/20 sn 156,, we ran DOS11 on DECtape for a while. RT was designed to be simple and not access the "disc" much. DOS wasn't. It read the directory every time it accessed a new file. Watching DECtapes spin gets boring rapidly. How many people have used the LINC-tape OS on a Nova, (or Rolm)? That was hell.
ron%brl-vgr@sri-unix.UUCP (02/07/84)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-vgr> Anybody want to by a linc-tape drive? I've got one in my closet. -Ron
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/09/84)
{} Knock not the linc-tape, you modern heathens -- it was gold in its time. Not too many people know about the linc (laboratory instrument computer) that was developed at MIT's Lincoln Lab more years ago than I like to count. The idea was to provide local computing power -- a sort of workstation -- to run laboratory instruments. To keep costs down it was designed as a kit, to be constructed by the user (who would then, perhaps, know how to fix it) with a compact instuction set (8 total) and, for random access, a whole 1K of core. Word length: 12 bits. Designer: Wesley A. Clark. But it needed offline storage, and drums were too expensive (disks? You mean phonograph records?) hence the block-addressed, byte-wide format on tape. Blocks were re-writable; sounds just like the latest Sinclair, doesn't it? The 1K internal store: if it was big enough for Univac ... A lot of people didn't want to build kits, so Clark approached a local firm that made plug-in boards, and got them to build the kits for the fumble-fingered. The outfit sold a few, got good responses, cleaned up the design a bit (keeping the 12 bit format and 8 instructions) and, viola`! The PDP-8. I think the outfit is still in business. -- Ed Nather ihnp4!{ut-sally,kpno}!utastro!nather Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austin
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/11/84)
> A lot of people didn't want to build (LINC) kits, so Clark approached a local > firm that made plug-in boards, and got them to build the kits for the > fumble-fingered. The outfit sold a few, got good responses, cleaned up > the design a bit (keeping the 12 bit format and 8 instructions) and, > viola`! The PDP-8. I think the outfit is still in business. Actually, DEC *did* get its start building plug-in boards, but they built their first computer - the PDP-1 - about a year after their start. The PDP-5 was the original DEC 12-bit computer; the PDP-8 was the next generation of same. Later, they built a machine called the LINC-8, which consisted either of a LINC and a PDP-8 in the same cabinet, or a processor which pretended it was a LINC and a PDP-8 in the same cabinet (I don't remember which). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/12/84)
============ A lot of people didn't want to build kits, so Clark approached a local firm that made plug-in boards, and got them to build the kits for the fumble-fingered. The outfit sold a few, got good responses, cleaned up the design a bit (keeping the 12 bit format and 8 instructions) and, viola`! The PDP-8. I think the outfit is still in business. Ed Nather ============ Nice story, but the PDP-8 was a remake of the PDP-5, developed by DEC for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. The LINC-8, If I remember correctly, combined the instruction sets of the LINC and the PDP-8 under (software?) switch control. Later it turned into the PDP-12. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
hody@dalcs.UUCP (Reg Hody) (02/14/84)
Does anybody remember the fun they had when they first attempted to recover information from a DECtape who's directory had been trashed? -- reg (Reg Hody, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. B3H 4H8) ({...decvax}!dartvax!dalcs!hody)
mbr@fortune.UUCP (02/18/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1607600:fortune:26900026:000:228 fortune!mbr Feb 17 17:16:00 1984 ***** fortune:net.unix / sri-arpa!A / 12:33 pm Jan 27, 1984 I had a great time one day running RT-11 on a PDP-11/10 with only a DECtape. A simple typo would cause the poor thing to go to tape for the error message. ----------
mbr@fortune.UUCP (02/18/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1607600:fortune:26900027:000:781 fortune!mbr Feb 17 17:29:00 1984 Sorry about the last message. I accidentally sent out a copy of the base note. Many moons ago, I worked on a multi-user basic interpreter for the PDP-11, whose main I/O device was dectape. We had a newly written device driver for it, and left some tests running overnight. Big mistake! We had forgotten to put an upper limit on the number of error recovery attempts. The next morning, we found that the dectape had been seeking back and forth over a bad block the entire night! The magnetic emulsion on that portion of the tape was completely worn away. The drive head was visible through the now clear backing of the tape, and was it ever HOT!!!!! {allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,dual, harpo,hpda,ihnp4,megatest,nsc, oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1}!fortune!mbr
ron@Brl-Tgr.ARPA (03/28/84)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@Brl-Tgr.ARPA> That ain't nothing. DECtape files (tp-format) were contiguous. Try piecing together an RK05 pack after some nimrod takes a crashdump on top of your inodes sometime. -Ron